Hamilton - Tim Horton's Field

[taal]

?

Miller would never recommend a suburban location over a central one for something like this, so it's hard to imagine an answer for your question as it stands.

I can imagine Rob Ford speaking out on behalf of the East Mountain site though, and I would expect all those who liked Miller's comments would be upset with the reverse. So yes, the answer is "Ford should butt out of Toronto's affairs".

42

That'll be a little difficult if he's mayor ... [predicts miserable 4 year term].

 

[isaidso]

couple of points....using Milwuakee as the city behind Green Bay Packer's attendance.....5 CFL cities have larger populations to draw on than the Packers...so population is not only factor at play here (poluarlity of the sport/league matters).......Montreal's sell outs are in a very small stadium (20k) relative to the size of the city and they lose money at that (explains the expansion of the Mcgill and the need to play the odd game at the Big Owe)....on that matter, has the stadium been expanded, just spent the last week in Quebec and noticed some tv ads for Als tickets.....they must have some to sell now.

One last question (hope this is not taken wrong) to the people who are glad Miller spoke up....would you be saying the same thing if his opinion of the stadium location was different? I guess what I am asking is....it his opinion you are applauding or his interjection into another city's affairs? (put another way, if he had said "east mountain is the place to be"...would the posts here be "glad miller is speaking up" or would they be "miller should butt out of Hamilton's affairs"?)

With the exception of Saskatchewan, football is more popular in the United States than Canada. You're correct that popularity does matter, but NFL teams do have vastly larger population bases at their disposal. Most NFL cities have at least 2 million people to draw from without having to go beyond their MSA. Buffalo and Green Bay are the exceptions. Milwaukee has 1,559,667 according to MSA figures in 2009. Only Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver are larger, not 5 CFL cities as you contend. There's also 5,654,774 people in Wisconsin, a relatively small state geographically.

Most Canadian cities post good attendance numbers for pro football. Even our bigger markets like Edmonton and Calgary are half the size of the small NFL cities like Kansas City or Cleveland. Winnipeg is a third their size. 28,000 in Winnipeg vs 78,000 in Kansas City? Those Bomber numbers are quite good put into proper context.

Molson Stadium is small, but I don't think it's accurate to downplay the popularity of Canadian football in Quebec. The Als got 400,000 people out to their Grey Cup celebration parade last year. Those numbers are huge. The Alouettes don't play regular season games at Olympic Stadium because they've been profitable for a number of years now. Perhaps 5 years ago they had their last game there.

Molson is now at 25,012 seats and still sells out. The stadium expansion has only increased their revenues and profits. Montrealers say its harder to score an Alouettes ticket than a Habs ticket. The huge coverage in Quebec print media is also a good indicator of the popularity of Canadian football in Quebec. What would the true attendance be if Molson were bigger? It's impossible to say, but it's far in excess of 25,000. The Als play at Molson because the fans want the games played there.

I'm a little hesitant applauding Miller's move. The optics look bad at first glance, but he's done the right thing. He could have taken the easy road and stayed on the sidelines. I think his support of West Harbour is correct, he's supporting a fellow mayor, and he's trying to bring the 2 sides together. If he had come out in favour of East Mountain, I'd be less pleased, but it would still be fine if that's what Hamilton wanted.

 

[Rowe]

I think a lot of the naysayers have forgotten one of our biggest landmarks... the Roger's Centre?

Could you think of the waterfront with no Roger's Centre? It was proposed to go to Downsview or York University. It was also paid for by three levels of government and private.

 

[jn_12]

Having spent a wee bit of time during my vacation considering the different options, I think I agree with this. It would seem to me that West Harbour is a better site.....that said though, if it kills the TiCats and we do end up spending tax payer money on a stadium that has no after-games uses I will change my mind...none of the advantages of West Harbour get realized if there is no use for/of the stadium.

This is essentially my view as well (although I'll add that the arguments made by some that this is going to be any sort of catalyst are false). It's because a tenant-less building is useless that I think the city needs to give in to the desires of the owner. He has all the power here, he's the one who has poured money into the team, and he's the one who will be assuming future risks as well. The city already has one underused building in Copps, why would it want a second?

 

[TOareaFan]

With the exception of Saskatchewan, football is more popular in the United States than Canada. You're correct that popularity does matter, but NFL teams do have vastly larger population bases at their disposal. Most NFL cities have at least 2 million people to draw from without having to go beyond their MSA. Buffalo and Green Bay are the exceptions. Milwaukee has 1,559,667 according to MSA figures in 2009. Only Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver are larger, not 5 CFL cities as you contend. There's also 5,654,774 people in Wisconsin, a relatively small state geographically.

I was sitting in an airport lounge when I posted that....here was the quick google search/source I used to make my point.....

http://www.mongabay.com/igapo/North_American_cities.htm

clearly, from this list, Milwaukee's city pop (I used city rather than CMA because of the different methods/measurements used in different countries) of 605k is exceed by Toronto, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Montreal and Calgary....5...sorry if that is not accurate but my point is just that our cities are really not that much smaller than some US cities and, yet, our football attendance is lower. I just don't think the game is as popular in Canada as it is in America. Nothing wrong with that it just (IMO) "is".

Most Canadian cities post good attendance numbers for pro football. Even our bigger markets like Edmonton and Calgary are half the size of the small NFL cities like Kansas City or Cleveland. Winnipeg is a third their size. 28,000 in Winnipeg vs 78,000 in Kansas City? Those Bomber numbers are quite good put into proper context.

Of course, without disputing those numbers, you conveniently leave out the fact that our biggest market (and one of the biggest markets in North America) gets crowds lower than in Winnipeg? So if 28k in Winnipeg is the same as 78k in KC....does that make the 20k (+/-) in Toronto like 11k?

Molson Stadium is small, but I don't think it's accurate to downplay the popularity of Canadian football in Quebec. The Als got 400,000 people out to their Grey Cup celebration parade last year. Those numbers are huge. The Alouettes don't play regular season games at Olympic Stadium because they've been profitable for a number of years now. Perhaps 5 years ago they had their last game there.

I did not mean to downplay the popularity of the CFL in Montreal......sorry if it came across that way....just meant that you have to consider stadium size before you overplay the significance of 94 straight sellouts....I do agree that it is impressive that they have added 5k seats this year and continue to sell out.

 

[isaidso]

I was sitting in an airport lounge when I posted that....here was the quick google search/source I used to make my point.....

http://www.mongabay.com/igapo/North_American_cities.htm

clearly, from this list, Milwaukee's city pop (I used city rather than CMA because of the different methods/measurements used in different countries) of 605k is exceed by Toronto, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Montreal and Calgary....5...sorry if that is not accurate but my point is just that our cities are really not that much smaller than some US cities and, yet, our football attendance is lower. I just don't think the game is as popular in Canada as it is in America. Nothing wrong with that it just (IMO) "is".

City population doesn't mean much since those are merely administrative boundaries. Before amalgamation, Etobicoke, Scarborough, Toronto, etc. were all separate cities, but people from Etobicoke didn't stop going to Leafs games because they were technically in Etobicoke. It's the metropolitan population from which a team draws fans from. I did agree with you that within America, football is more popular in the United States than Canada. That's very true.

Of course, without disputing those numbers, you conveniently leave out the fact that our biggest market (and one of the biggest markets in North America) gets crowds lower than in Winnipeg? So if 28k in Winnipeg is the same as 78k in KC....does that make the 20k (+/-) in Toronto like 11k?

I didn't intend to mislead, but you're right about support in Toronto. Toronto should be able to support 3 teams drawing 90,000/fans each to get the same penetration rate for football as cities like Winnipeg or Kansas City. Massillon High School in Ohio gets more people out to football than metropolitan Toronto does for pro football. There's a very loyal die hard football fan base that go to the games here in Toronto, but there are probably 200 towns/cities in north America that draw more than Toronto does.

I did not mean to downplay the popularity of the CFL in Montreal......sorry if it came across that way....just meant that you have to consider stadium size before you overplay the significance of 94 straight sellouts....I do agree that it is impressive that they have added 5k seats this year and continue to sell out.

No worries, and I didn't take it that way. I've been a hardcore football fan for over 20 years and doubt people in the general public/those outside Quebec are aware of the popularity of Canadian football in Quebec. 20,000 or 25,000 seats is still small, but I find a lot of people don't bother to dig a little deeper. The Montreal Alouettes fan base is substantial. The 25,000 seat number is misleading just taken at face value. I bet Molson Stadium would sell out if it could hold 45,000.

 

[unimaginative2]

Huh. Baltimore Ravens. That's a pretty literate name for a football team.

Hamilton's got quite a problem here. Losing the Ti-Cats would be a huge psychological blow to the city. I can definitely understand them wanting to compromise on this. It is pretty egregious, though, that this owner is playing hardball on the stadium site when he isn't even paying to build the thing.

 

[jn_12]

Perhaps I missed where the argument started, but why are we bothering to compare population sizes between NFL and CFL markets? No league anywhere could be compared to the NFL. It's become America's pastime and it's deeply entrenched in American culture pretty much everywhere. It's a juggernaut that goes beyond just sports/football fans. You can throw a dart at a map, build a stadium and I'd wager more people will go than you'd find at any CFL game. And there's nothing wrong with that!

Also, the point about the Alouettes is correct. They could sell 50% more tickets to every game. But we have a good example in this city of how stadium size can influence demand and perceived success. TFC has a huge waiting list, as do the Leafs. Both are consistently selling out their stadiums and they're both considered massive successes. Yet, the Jays can sell equally as many seats to twice and 4 times as many games and they're looked at as struggling. The perception of 30,000 empty seats has a huge effect on peoples' willingness to go to a game. TFC is popular because people see a full stadium and think "there must be something to it if it's always packed." Whereas, the opposite is assumed with the Jays. Think of what kind of effect that has on sponsorships and advertising as well. So for the Alouettes (and this would probably be a lesson to any CFL team) a smaller stadium is much better.

 

[TOareaFan]

Huh. Baltimore Ravens. That's a pretty literate name for a football team.

Hamilton's got quite a problem here. Losing the Ti-Cats would be a huge psychological blow to the city. I can definitely understand them wanting to compromise on this. It is pretty egregious, though, that this owner is playing hardball on the stadium site when he isn't even paying to build the thing.

It was my understanding that after the Pan Am Games stadium (15k and $60 million in cost) was built and the games were over, it was expected that the private sector partner (TiCats/Young) were expected to pay the cost of bringing the stadium to CFL standards/size......if that is so, perhaps it is not so wrong that Mr. Young is having his say?

 

[TOareaFan]

Perhaps I missed where the argument started, but why are we bothering to compare population sizes between NFL and CFL markets? No league anywhere could be compared to the NFL. It's become America's pastime and it's deeply entrenched in American culture pretty much everywhere. It's a juggernaut that goes beyond just sports/football fans. You can throw a dart at a map, build a stadium and I'd wager more people will go than you'd find at any CFL game. And there's nothing wrong with that!

Also, the point about the Alouettes is correct. They could sell 50% more tickets to every game. But we have a good example in this city of how stadium size can influence demand and perceived success. TFC has a huge waiting list, as do the Leafs. Both are consistently selling out their stadiums and they're both considered massive successes. Yet, the Jays can sell equally as many seats to twice and 4 times as many games and they're looked at as struggling. The perception of 30,000 empty seats has a huge effect on peoples' willingness to go to a game. TFC is popular because people see a full stadium and think "there must be something to it if it's always packed." Whereas, the opposite is assumed with the Jays. Think of what kind of effect that has on sponsorships and advertising as well. So for the Alouettes (and this would probably be a lesson to any CFL team) a smaller stadium is much better.

I think we got into the population discussion because I intepreted someone elses comment to mean that the only reason that stadiums and attendance are smaller here is because our cities are smaller....I think small cities can have big stadiums if they also happen to have a passion for a sport (I'll use an example I have in the past Glasgow Scotland....small city http://www.citymayors.com/gratis/uk_topcities.html).....3 soccer stadiums over 50k.

 

[Tulse]

we have a good example in this city of how stadium size can influence demand and perceived success. TFC has a huge waiting list, as do the Leafs. Both are consistently selling out their stadiums and they're both considered massive successes. Yet, the Jays can sell equally as many seats to twice and 4 times as many games and they're looked at as struggling.

That's because the economics of the situation are radically different -- Toronto FC has a total team payroll of around $2.5 million, whereas the Jays payroll is about $60 million, or twenty four times the size of TFC. Just doubling or quadrupling TFC's attendance is a real problem with those kind of economics.

 

[jn_12]

I think we got into the population discussion because I intepreted someone elses comment to mean that the only reason that stadiums and attendance are smaller here is because our cities are smaller....I think small cities can have big stadiums if they also happen to have a passion for a sport (I'll use an example I have in the past Glasgow Scotland....small city http://www.citymayors.com/gratis/uk_topcities.html).....3 soccer stadiums over 50k.

Makes sense, though it's hilarious that Queens Park plays at Hampden Park. they only fill 1 or 2% of the stadium. I think if the NHL only played 20-30 games per season, you could build 50,000+ seat arenas in Canada and sell out in each city, no matter the size, no problem.

That's because the economics of the situation are radically different -- Toronto FC has a total team payroll of around $2.5 million, whereas the Jays payroll is about $60 million, or twenty four times the size of TFC. Just doubling or quadrupling TFC's attendance is a real problem with those kind of economics.

Well i wasn't talking about economics. I was talking about fan perception. To a fan, a stadium that is half empty will look as though no one cares about the team, even if more people are actually watching than at another team's games where the team appears successful. If the chance to go to a Jays game is perceived as less valuable than a chance to go see TFC or the Leafs then you're probably less likely to attend or desire to attend.

As for economics, ticket revenue is only a small part of the equation. The Jays made a profit last season according to Beeston and because they're owned by Rogers, they provide far more value than ticket revenue can solely provide. The last numbers I've found were $42million in ticket revenue for the Jays in 2008 and that only accounted for 25% of their revenue that year. As for TFC, their jersey deal with BMO gives them $4million/year. So tickets don't mean a whole lot really other than having an effect on perception. I'd bet that if the Jays played in a 35,000 seats stadium people would view them as being more successful.

Also, even if ticket revenue mattered significantly, simply saying that 2 or 4 times more games than TFC isn't enough to account for the 24X gap between payrolls isn't really true. You're assuming TFC is just making enough to cover its payroll, when it probably makes its payroll in a couple games. Even if TFC charged on average $30 per ticket, they'd make around 13-14million per season in ticket revenue. Bring that total to the Jays 81 games and you're looking at $50million. So that's not that bad really.

 

[TOareaFan]

That's because the economics of the situation are radically different -- Toronto FC has a total team payroll of around $2.5 million, whereas the Jays payroll is about $60 million, or twenty four times the size of TFC. Just doubling or quadrupling TFC's attendance is a real problem with those kind of economics.

Not sure how perception of successful (or not) attendance is effected by payroll or perception of payroll.........in case it is, however! TFC's payroll is a lot higher than $2.5 million.......JDG alone makes about $3 mil!

 

[jn_12]

Not sure how perception of successful (or not) attendance is effected by payroll or perception of payroll.........in case it is, however! TFC's payroll is a lot higher than $2.5 million.......JDG alone makes about $3 mil!

JDG makes $1.67 million. So JDG plus the cap which is set at $2.55million means they're just over 4million/year. They probably make that in 8 home games easily.

 

[Tulse]

Not sure how perception of successful (or not) attendance is effected by payroll or perception of payroll

It's very simple -- if it costs more to run a team, it needs to take in more revenue to be "successful". It's just like any other business. A team with large expenses needs a bigger crowd to make its costs than a team with smaller expenses.